User talk:Classicfilms/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Good work

Hi Classicfilms! Good work on the Beowulf topic. I really appreciate to see someone pull the sleeves up and do some good work. By the way, I'd love to see the Grendel article worked out in the same way as Grendel's mother. Another thing I am curious about is the identity of Grendel. To a Scandinavian he is a troll, nothing more nothing less, but you removed it and I understand that you had a reason for it. I would love to see you present the scholarly point of view, as you have for Grendel's mother. Cheers,--Wiglaf 20:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. I see that you are doing the same good work with Grendel. There is only one problem with the argumentation as I see it. You wrote:

It also supports the ideas of noted Beowulf scholar F. Klaeber and others who have connected the image of Grendel with that of a troll. Nothing in the original language of the poem translates as troll, but the term was introduced because of certain folktales of the time which contained such an image. While Beowulf is believed to have circulated in the Oral tradition, it is unknown which tales (if any) influenced the poet.

The problem here is that the article claims that he is called ettin and ent, i.e. Jotun. This is actually a statement that he is a troll, since troll and ettin were the same concept in Norse mythology. Snorri Sturluson for instance uses the name troll women about female jotuns in the nafnaþulur.--Wiglaf 21:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Wiglaf,

Thanks for your feedback. Perhaps the term has many meanings. In Klaeber (1950), "Eoten" (another version of "ettin") is translated as "giant", leaving the image ambiguous -- if you want to stick troll back in go ahead -- I just think the point should be made that we really don't know what Grendel was and that there is debate on the topic ClassicFilms.

I won't stick troll back into it, if there is any serious dispute in the matter. We all have our opinions, but Wikipedia is not the place to express them. It is where we in good faith add what we believe to be facts. However, I'd prefer the article not to be dismissive of the troll theory since it has good foundation :).--Wiglaf 21:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

PS. You can check out the troll article here on Wikipedia. It is quite good at the moment, and you can see how the meaning has varied during time and space.--Wiglaf 21:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Wiglaf,

Fair enough as objectivity is always the goal-- I went back to the article and tweaked it a bit more trying to balance the arguments -- in a context that indicates that there are still a lot of unanswered ambiguities.

By the way, the Troll article is great!! Thanks again for the feedback, it was helpful -- ClassicFilms

æ

Hi Berig - thanks for making the important ae -> æ change to the Grendel's mother article. It is correct of course, I just wasn't certain how to do the formatting. -Classicfilms 18:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that you appreciate my small contribution. You have done great work on Grendel's mother!--Berig 19:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's nice of you to say. And I hope you'll make more contributions to the Grendel's mother page. -Classicfilms 19:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

At the moment I am focusing on some pieces of rock that litter the landscape where I live, but thanks for inviting me. I may have a closer look later this week :).--Berig 19:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Beowulf

Oh shit, lol. I was typing up Variety and THR reviews. Damn you mate! Alientraveller 16:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I was joking around mate. Besides, be careful next time, you screwed up a lot of the proper text. Having slashes in headers is pretty poor too. Better luck next time. Alientraveller 16:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alientraveller - Ok, now I do see that you were joking - in the future you might want to add something (such as an emoticon) to clarify that you are joking since tone is not always apparent. In creating the slashes, I was following this part of the Wikifilm project styleguide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Background.2FProduction But I'll leave it as is. You are a good editor and I would like to work with you to improve the article. I'll continue commentary on the Beowulf (2007 film) article talk page. -Classicfilms 16:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Emoticons? Not here, but yeah, I could express myself better. Anyway, just remember, cites always need to be directly after punctuation, and generally production is a preferred term. "Development" tends to be used to discuss something like the ridiculousness it took Watchmen to reach the big screen. Alientraveller 16:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Beowulf cast

Wow. Bang up job you've done, it looks fantastic. Alientraveller 08:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the feedback. I thought that the bold added a nice touch as well. -Classicfilms 15:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar, Classicfilms! I very much appreciate it :).--Berig 19:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome - and deserving for your work on List of characters and objects in Beowulf! -Classicfilms 19:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There'll be some more articles that relate to Beowulf :). I hope you'll like them as well.--Berig 20:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking forward to it! -Classicfilms 20:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Beowulf

I just wanted to commend you on the great work you've been doing with Beowulf. Keep it up! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Erik, I really appreciate the feedback. And I also appreciate your commentary and suggestions which I find very helpful in knowing how to best improve the article. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Award

Please accept the award I have added to your user page in recognition of your great work on Beowulf related articles.--Berig (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What a surprise! Thank you so much Berig, I really appreciate the award. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you like it. You deserve an award.--Berig (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Bloodofox - Thanks so much for the cleanup on the Grendel's mother page. Since your background in this aspect of the article is quite strong, I hope you'll give the article more tweaks and edits when you have a chance. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem! I am glad that to help on this very interesting subject. Keep up the good work! :) :bloodofox: (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fabulous changes to the introduction (which I also tweaked a bit). That will help readers to distinguish between the original work and the multiple translations which currently exist - your edits are always so helpful, keep it up! Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Girolamo Savonarola -thanks for the offer. I think I am, at this point, going to pass since I need to cut back on the amount of time that I spend here, but I do appreciate the fact that you thought of me. Best regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

wikiproject coordinator

Hi Erik,

I see you are running for the Wikiproject coordinator position. You certainly have my vote as I was very impressed by your work on the Beowulf (2007 film) article - could you put a brief reminder on my talk page when voting begins? It may slip my mind otherwise. Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I will try my best to let you know. :) I am busy in real life, so I won't be around Wikipedia too much. I appreciate your commentary about Beowulf, but I think editors like Alientraveller largely contributed to the article. I just helped out with a few links and a few words of advice on how to present the article. Otherwise, hope you've been well! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I very much understand the demands of RL :-) - I just want to make sure I don't forget to vote... You are a bit modest, Erik about your contributions to the Beowulf film article as you proved yourself to be a fair and neutral editor on a number of occassions. I've looked at some of your other contributions to film pages (clearly one of my favorite areas of the WP!) and was very impressed - so the vote is well deserved. All is well in general, thanks for asking. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: 1984

Hi Erik,

I wonder if I could ask for your thoughts on this article, 1984 (television commercial). While technically a commercial, it is a work by Ridley Scott and the subject of study by scholars. I am thus treating it as a film article. Sources are needed and I am going to reformat it according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines at some point. However, I am wondering about one section called "dialogue" which offers the entire spoken text of the ad. This seems to me potentially a Wikipedia:Copyrights problem though I wanted to run this by you since you are more experienced with these issues. I am wondering if the entire section (particularly the second part which isn't sourced) should just be removed. When you have a chance, please take a look. Thanks and hope all is well, -Classicfilms (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I would definitely remove the dialog for now. I would suggest placing the diff on the talk page and explaining your removal. I would suggest only returning parts of the dialog that may have critical analysis. This would be OK under fair use. It's possible that you could include the whole dialog if there was analysis for all of it, though I'm not certain (since it takes up the whole commercial as you say). Hope this helps somewhat. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much Erik. This was very helpful. You can see how I approached this issue here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1984_%28television_commercial%29

Let me know if you have any other suggestions for this article as well. Thanks again, ::-Classicfilms (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of History of Macintosh

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article History of Macintosh, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

I checked the history and there are minor changes that you made from the original text. Please consider merging them back in to the main article (bear in mind that the information may already be present; i.e. the 1984 ad is described under "advertising").--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I made the same minor edits to the main article so there shouldn't be a problem. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Beowulf pages

Could I ask you to take a look at some of the recent edits on the Beowulf and Grendel's mother articles? Hope all is well, -Classicfilms (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I'll give the article a look over and see what I can do. Is there anything in particular you would like me to have a look at? And thanks, I hope you are doing well too. :} :bloodofox: (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! Sorry, I wasn't watching your talk page and only just saw your response. At the time I posted this, a new user was making edits and I wanted your opinion on them but this seems to have resolved itself. However, on the topic of these articles, I'm wondering what it would take to elevate Beowulf to at least a good article. The article has improved over time but it would be nice to push it to the next level - and it would be great to see it become a featured article. Just some thoughts, -Classicfilms (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello again! I think the Beowulf article is definitely featured article material. First of all, we need to properly source all claims made on the article. We also need to dig through it and remove all the external links within the body of the article in favor of inline citations. I'll go through it again here soon and see what I can do. Once that's done, we can nominate it for WP:GA and see what they say as they'll probably have a lot more suggestions, and after that we can bring it through the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria process, during all of which I'll gladly help. Maybe we ought to cut to the chase and start applying the WP:FA criteria to it. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Great ideas - go ahead and let me know what you want me to do. I'm also wondering if we could find a few more Wikipedians who are experts on the subject to give it a once over. The topic is enormous with thousands of works of scholarship in numerous languages. FA status would mean that somehow we did justice to this thought which is a bit overwhelming to me. Do you know of an existing encyclopedic article on Beowulf (besides the intros to the Norton) - while we certainly don't want to copy them, it would be helpful to see how we should think of an FA version of this article. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly relate. It's definitely a mountain to tackle, and I constantly find myself side tracked with articles I've been meaning to getting around to write, so please pardon my wandering and speed. :} Right now, we ought to just make sure that everything is properly referenced, and we ought to go into these references and standardize them all in one format. As daunting as it is, it might be best if convert the references over to Harvard-style referencing with a "Notes" and "References" section as some of the references that are there now would certainly benefit from it. Then we ought to elect it for a GA review so we at least have it up to that standard. After we've satisfied GA criteria, we ought to then elect it for FA status. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a great plan and no apologies. The WP is a volunteer project and people should contribute when and if they have the time and there are always many articles to look at. So, yes, I think this is a good place to begin and I've held it as a rule that a B article should go for GA first rather than FA. Since there is so much out there it is just overwhelming to think of how to do this properly but perhaps over time a method will sort itself out. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies...

Hi Berig, I rarely check email and I just did today, finding a message that you sent in April. I'm sorry for not responding sooner. My talk page is the best place to find me. Thanks so much for asking to nominate me for an admin. I really appreciate it. I'll have to pass at this moment since as it is I spend too much time in the WP but feel free to contact me to work on Beowulf related articles. Regards and thanks again, -Classicfilms (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem :). Just tell me if you change your mind about it.--Berig (talk) 07:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You bet!! It was very nice of you to suggest it - as I said, I just felt bad that it was asked so long ago and I missed it ... hope you had a good holiday. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! We went to Scandinavia's biggest amusement park, and I took a lot of pictures when I was in Västergötland that I intend to use on WP :).--Berig (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking forward to seeing the photos! -Classicfilms (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have already been adding some of them, but many will have to wait until I have time and material for new articles and sections.--Berig (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Æglæca

I'm mentioning this to you since you seem to be the main contributor to Grendel's mother. Interested by the debate about the word æglæca, I went and looked it up in the OED. There was no entry, so I tried converting æ → e as often occurs. This turned up the word egleche:

[app. repr. or f. OE. aglǽca, aglǽcea, n., cruel person, fierce warrior, f. aglác misery, sharp conflict; of uncertain origin.]

? Valiant.

a1250 Prov. Ælfred in O.E. Misc. 102 Knyhtes egleche. a1300 Magdalena in Saints' Lives (1887) 462 Sleiȝe men and egleche..Lustniez nouþe to mi speche. c1300 in R. GLOUC. (Rolls) Append. XX. 125 Þe lefdi [the empress Matilda] was egleche.

This seems to support the later conclusions regarding æglæca’s meaning. —porges_(talk) 12:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That is interesting, thanks! The best person to share this information with is User:Berig who also works on this article and most of the Beowulf pages. -Classicfilms (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Lagaan GAR

Hi, thanks for contacting me, and sorry for the delay. For GARs, they can be completed by an individual or by the community. You started a community assessment, so when you tried to transclude the individual page, there was nothing to transclude. I transcluded the community GAR (which probably isn't necessary), but it shows the current responses to it up to when I transcluded it. When the GAR is completed, then I believe a bot updates the article history based on the pass/fail and will link to the actual review page. In the future, the only reason to transclude the page is for individual assessments. For future community GARs, just provide a link to the page. Let me know if you need further clarification. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I see, thanks so much for the clarification. I'm a newbie when it comes to GAR so your explanation really helps. I wonder if the instructions could be tweaked a bit to highlight some of the points that you made? They were a little confusing. Thanks again, -Classicfilms (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the GAR page, there are instructions for individual assessments on the left and community assessments on the right (in the white boxes at the top of the page). The community ones don't mention transcluding any review pages (so you didn't have to). I haven't started any community GARs myself since the new setup was created, but I have used the individual assessment page and transcluded each review. I'm not sure on how it could be further edited to make it simpler, but if you can think of anything feel free to reword it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I see what happened. I used the box for an individual reassessment but I clicked the link for community reassessment. Since I'm new, I didn't really understand the difference. This should have been an individual reassessment rather than community. Is it possible to correct this? My only real goal is to fix what I see as problems in the article. There really isn't an outstanding disagreement.-Classicfilms (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say stick with the community one since there has already been some input from other editors. Just remember to use the individual one in the future if you plan to mention only a few pressing issues. If you believe that you need further feedback in delisting an article or for gaining consensus on issues you raise, then use the community one. There should be no harm with initiating the community one. The benefit of the community one is that other editors may notice issues that you did not, and may persuade more people to help in improving the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks! -Classicfilms (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

January 2013

Hello, I'm Grammarxxx. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Rahm Emanuel, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Although sourced, it was improperly done so. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 06:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you reformatted the reliable source that I provided and kept the text. Thanks for your help. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Adam Horowitz (journalist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adam Horowitz (journalist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ Adam Horowitz (journalist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.